Using your Gorgias Syriac Collection and Mat 21:31

My, that Leiden Peshitta is difficult to extract from that town in northern Washington! Probably guards posted at all highways leaving the small town.

But while we're patiently waiting, those of you that purchased Gorgias, and also have the two coptics will have fun looking at Mat 21:31.

Jesus introduces the problem of two sons, both being instructed to work in a vineyard, one refusing but changing his mind, and the other agreeing, but not doing.

Then Jesus poses the question, as to which did the will of the father giving the instructions.

You'd probably say, 'well that's easy' ... the first one! And so the major greek text forms. But the two coptics and the earlier of the syriac gospels say, no ... the last one. So then you wonder 'why'?

Ah .... Logos is so interesting.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

NetworkGeek

If I am reading the Sahidic Coptic NT and Bohairic Coptic NT correctly, the order of the sons is also switched in the questioning, so that their answer is the same son as we are accustomed to in contemporary Bible translations. WBC discusses this, saying the order was switched but the answer is the same, since the son who says "I will go" but did not, represents Israel, and the other son represents the gentiles, and switching the order matches the order in salvation history. (Pre WBC).

What is odd is your point is correct about the Syriac Sinaiticus, though (not the Coptic manuscripts) - it does have the son who said yes but does not go as the one doing the will of the Father. This is commented by Metzger in TGCNT. He says this is nonsensical, an explanation is needed. Jerome said that the Jews, knowing it was a parable directed to them, gave a nonsensical response to disrupt the parable. That opinion is not highly regarded as in short, it gives too much thought and credit to the Jews at that moment (read Metzger for embellishment).

So Metzger said the more common explanations are either (1) it's just a copy blunder or (2) since the Pharisees were characterized as the son who said Yes but did not go, they would identify that son as themselves and answer that he does the will of the father. I happen to think we are over thinking it, it's just a copy blunder in one manuscript (although Metzger does map out the manuscripts that have drawn this error into their own translations as well, there are about 6-7 of them).

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/314809#Comment_314809

Great comments, Dominick and good illustration of using Logos resources.

Of course, the question then becomes, why would the two coptics reverse the order (both likely sitting over top greek versions)?

I might add, if one moves through the early versions like this, you'll find quite a number of situations like this.

And so ... the value of multiple early versions in Logos!!

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/314816#Comment_314816

Of course, the question then becomes, why would the two coptics reverse the order (both likely sitting over top greek versions)?

According to WBC, the Coptics both have the order of the sons switched in the question from Jesus, and the response is the latter. They have answer the son who says no but changes his mind. And the order was switched so that the first son now becomes the son who said yes but did not go, who represents the Jews, the Chosen People, who were first in the order of salvation history.

Also, the more I think about it, the more I believe the Syriac Sinaiticus is a copy blunder. Others may correct me, but I am pretty sure that is later than the Sahidic Coptic version, so it's quite logical that in a later translation the "former" became "latter". My .02

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/314819#Comment_314819

Of course, the question then becomes, why would the two coptics reverse the order (both likely sitting over top greek versions)?

According to WBC, the Coptics both have the order of the sons switched in the question from Jesus, and the response is the latter. They have answer the son who says no but changes his mind. And the order was switched so that the first son now becomes the son who said yes but did not go, who represents the Jews, the Chosen People, who were first in the order of salvation history.

Also, the more I think about it, the more I believe the Syriac Sinaiticus is a copy blunder. Others may correct me, but I am pretty sure that is later than the Sahidic Coptic version, so it's quite logical that in a later translation the "former" became "latter". My .02

There may be more to it than simply a copy blunder. It is frequently the practice to place the desired choice in the last position so that the change in order could reflect a desire to have it conform to such a convention.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/314857#Comment_314857

Also, the more I think about it, the more I believe the Syriac Sinaiticus is a copy blunder. Others may correct me, but I am pretty sure that is later than the Sahidic Coptic version, so it's quite logical that in a later translation the "former" became "latter". My .02

There may be more to it than simply a copy blunder. It is frequently the practice to place the desired choice in the last position so that the change in order could reflect a desire to have it conform to such a convention.

I am not so sure about that George. The Syriac I refer to here is the only manuscript of the ones we are discussing where the Jews answer that the son who says Yes and never goes is the one doing the will of the Father. As Metzger says, this is nonsensical. The other manuscripts change the order of the question and the answer, so there your suggestion is more plausible.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/314809#Comment_314809

it gives too much thought and credit to the Jews at that moment

I find this logic astonishing /bemusing regardless of what argument it appears in.[:O] Let's send Metzger off to a yeshiva.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/314918#Comment_314918

I find this logic astonishing /bemusing regardless of what argument it appears in. Let's send Metzger off to a yeshiva.

Actually you are picking on the wrong guy. This was a "judgment" of a Committee of scholars (he doesn't say under what circumstance they got together or what this judgment is), of Karl Lachmann, Adalbert Merx, Julius Wellhausen, and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. I am no scholar but their credentials, writings and publications looked pretty impressive to me from some Internet surfing and looking around Logos, but of course MJ you would be a much better judge of the validity of their credentials and [;)]

I may have mislead in a brief summary, I erroneously presumed the scholars' conclusion was reasonable given the nature of the thread. Here is the full text of what Metzger said:

Because such explanations attribute to the Jews, or to Matthew, far-fetched psychological or overly-subtle literary motives, the Committee judged that the origin of reading (b) is due to copyists who either committed a transcriptional blunder or who were motivated by anti-Pharisaic bias (i. e., since Jesus had characterized the Pharisees as those that say but do not practice (cf. Mt 23:3), they must be represented as approving the son who said “I go,” but did not go).

Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/314935#Comment_314935

This brings up a common issue that I struggle with - word order. If you know a little about Greek, like me, but are not a scholar, you can get easily confused. As it is the suffix and prefix that determine the function of words in sentences, you could easily write a sentence two separate ways and have the same intended meaning. Now obviously sometimes there is a purpose in placing certain words in certain order or even certain sentences. As we see here in the Matthew example - we get the exact same thing communicated to us from both sets of text yet one is reversed. How do we know when word and sentence order matters and when does it not matter at all? (I've heard sermons dedicated entirely to word order of certain texts!) It's sad to see that critics of the Words take such variants to mean errors and a fallible text, yet we know we can trust the Word of God... it's all very interesting, yet confusion, and often times irrelevant.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/314938#Comment_314938

Well, Alexander .... keeping to the original thought, it's always instructive to see how earlier translators struggled, they often being quite expert.

And in the above discussion, I'm surprised concerning Jerome. That's really intriguing.

Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/314952#Comment_314952

Well, Alexander .... keeping to the original thought, it's always instructive to see how earlier translators struggled, they often being quite expert.

And in the above discussion, I'm surprised concerning Jerome. That's really intriguing.

Indeed.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/314935#Comment_314935

it gives too much thought and credit to the Jews at that moment

vs.

far-fetched psychological or overly-subtle literary motives

The first I have trouble with because of the sophisticated interpretation of the era. The second is much more believable and a better (if imperfect) thread of reasoning.[:)]

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/315015#Comment_315015

I am glad I cleared up your concern.